A US judge has ordered the FBI to stop its "pervasive" use of National Security letters to snoop on phone and email records, ruling Friday that the widespread tactic was unconstitutional. The order issued by US District Court Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco came as a blow to a measure heavily used by the administration of President Barack Obama in the name of battling terrorism." http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... titutional.

Unfortunately many people's privacy have already been violated by the spying tactics of the present government. And then the article goes on to state: "Illston set her ban on NSLs to take effect in 90 days to allow US lawyers to appeal the decision given "the significant constitutional and national security issues at stake."In my opinion, they just go around in circles and nothing of importance ever gets done

n my opinion, they just go around in circles and nothing of importance ever gets done

lilac, something is being done and that is the non stop invasion of privacy. A couple of months ago, within a one week period, I read that 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 billion e-mails, text messages and phone calls are recorded and stored daily within the US. This is something the US spy agencies are not supposed to do, but they go right ahead and do. The following is an article from the NY Times that was printed in our local paper's business section and are only representative of the "legal" request. This does not, however, address the fact that google and associates mine our e-mails for data every time we send one let alone what the 72 known US spying fusion centers are doing on a minute by minute basis:

Microsoft disclosed for the first time on Thursday the number of requests it had received from government law enforcement agencies for data on its hundreds of millions of customers around the world, joining the ranks of Google, Twitter and other Web businesses that publish so-called transparency reports.

The report, which Microsoft said it planned to update every six months, showed that law enforcement agencies in five countries — Britain, France, Germany, Turkey and the United States — accounted for 69 percent of the 70,665 requests the company received last year.

In 80 percent of requests, Microsoft provided elements of what is called noncontent data, like an account holder’s name, sex, e-mail address, I.P. address, country of residence, and dates and times of data traffic.

In 2.1 percent of requests, the company disclosed the actual content of a communication, like the subject heading of an e-mail, the contents of an e-mail or a picture stored on SkyDrive, its cloud computing service.

Microsoft said it disclosed the content of communications in 1,544 cases to law enforcement agencies in the United States, and in 14 cases to agents in Brazil, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand.

“Government requests for online data are like the dark matter of the Internet,” said Eva Galperin, a global policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which has campaigned for greater disclosure.

Ms. Galperin said that even with Microsoft’s disclosures, fewer than 10 companies published the extent of their cooperation with law enforcement agencies.

“Only a few companies report this, but they are only a very small percent of the online universe,” she said. “So any one company that joins the disclosure effort is good news. The faster this becomes a standard for all Web businesses, the better.”

The law enforcement requests concerned users of Microsoft services including Hotmail, Outlook.com, SkyDrive, Skype and Xbox Live, where people are typically asked to enter their personal details to obtain service.

Google was the first major Web business, in 2010, to report the number of legal requests it had received for information. Since then, Twitter, LinkedIn and some smaller companies have also begun reporting, but big businesses like Apple and Yahoo have not.

Microsoft also resisted at first. In January, a group of more than 100 Internet activists and digital rights groups signed a petition asking the company to disclose its data-handling practices for Skype, the Internet voice and video service it bought in 2011.

But Microsoft did provide two types of detail in its transparency report that rivals have not addressed in similar fashion.

It described the reasons it had rejected some requests, and it listed separately by country how it had responded to requests for the content of communications and for noncontent data.

It also published separate information for Skype, which is based in Luxembourg and is subject to national and European Union laws.

In 4,713 cases last year, Microsoft disclosed administrative details of Skype accounts — like a user’s Skype ID, name, e-mail address and billing information, as well as call detail records if a person subscribed to a Skype service that connects to a telephone number.

But Microsoft said it had released no content from Skype transmissions last year. It has said that the peer-to-peer nature of Skype’s Internet conversations means the company does not store and has no access to past conversations.

The countries that made the most requests and received information from Microsoft for Skype noncontent information last year, in descending order, were Britain, the United States, Germany, France and Taiwan, which together accounted for about 80 percent of the requests.

Microsoft did not disclose the total number of requests it had received for Skype information, but said it aimed to do so in its next report later this year.

Brad Smith, an executive vice president at Microsoft and the company’s general counsel, said that the number of requests Microsoft received last year covered only a tiny fraction of its huge customer base, which the company estimates is in the hundreds of millions.

Mr. Smith said in a blog post that the requests in 2012 had affected less than 0.02 percent of Microsoft account holders. He wrote that Microsoft, like all global businesses, must comply with requests from law enforcement, but that the company had set high standards for doing so.

Law enforcement agencies must present a subpoena or its foreign equivalent to obtain noncontent data about Microsoft users, Mr. Smith wrote. To obtain the contents of e-mails and other communications, the company requires agencies to submit a warrant, which is issued in the United States by a court judge and in Britain by the home secretary.

Microsoft rejected requests for data in 18 percent of cases last year, mostly because it could not find any information on the individuals named or because law enforcement officials had not demonstrated the proper legal justification for the requests, the company said.

It also said it had received a minuscule number of requests for data on businesses.

In 2012, Microsoft said, it received only 11 requests for information on business clients and complied in four instances, either after it had obtained consent from the business or when it already had in effect a contract permitting it to disclose the information.

“Like every company, we are obligated to comply with legally binding requests from law enforcement, and we respect and appreciate the role that law enforcement personnel play in so many countries to protect the public’s safety,” Mr. Smith wrote in his blog post. “As we continue to move forward, Microsoft is committed to respecting human rights, free expression and individual privacy.”

"I do believe that someone who was familiar and is familiar with Kevin just simply took his personal information and did this to him," McCoy said. "It is absolutely horrific that someone would do this."Curtis said it was an eye-opener for him."I think now, how many people are thrown in jail because of circumstantial evidence and someone can frame you that easily," he said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/23/us/ricin- ... index.html

I think this man was "framed" due to the fact that the gov't agencies that "spy" on innocent people are paranoid that someone else may use the same type of tactics to get back at them. Does that make sense to anyone?

Well,it looks like the fix is in.Recently tried surfing 'off rez'.Half of it seems to be unavailable or off-lined-this is big companies or names,not niche sites.Makes things more difficult for those who have no voice to communicate,thereby rendering the technology MORE inefficient.(it limps at the best of times,but small mercies...).

_________________"A people without history is like wind on the buffalo grass."- Teton Sioux proverb

Many on this site are confirmed Marxist, socialist. Marxism, socialism and communism are one in the same. Why does it surprise you that the communist politburo premier Obama is taking constitutional rights away? People can not say they didn't know he is a communist. The phrase, "Distribution of wealth" was the give away. Barry O should have had the flag of the Soviet Union behind him.

Many on this site are confirmed Marxist, socialist. Marxism, socialism and communism are one in the same. Why does it surprise you that the communist politburo premier Obama is taking constitutional rights away? People can not say they didn't know he is a communist. The phrase, "Distribution of wealth" was the give away. Barry O should have had the flag of the Soviet Union behind him.

Well Flip, I must disagree with you. I assume that you consider me either a communist or socialist. That's OK even if you are incorrect in that assumption. While the deterioration of civil rights started in the 1970s It has been on an advanced trajectory since 9/11 and the passage of The Patriot Act with one dissenting vote in the Senate (damned liberal commie) and a few in the House of Representatives. One of those voting against the act was Republican Congressman Bob Barr. When the Congress met on the Capitol steps he went to the microphone and stated: "If we catch a terrorist we are NOT going to read him his Miranda rights, we are going to shoot him dead." The problem was that the Patriot Act was changed at the last minute and arrived at his office "Still wet from the printer." He started flipping through it and realized that these were laws that had already been debated, voted on and rejected (remember, at that time the Republicans had control of both Houses). So to try and blame all this on black feather is not only a bit unfair but inaccurate. The conservatives on the Supreme Court have ruled on Emanate Domain (good for stealing lands for corporations), Citizens United, in favor of the FISA Court and now DNA swabs when arrested for "serious crimes." I read yesterday that the House in Florida passed a law making it a felony to "annoy a police officer." Pretty serious, eh.

With that being said, I DO NOT think Obama innocent. In my opinion he should, as well as Bush, Cheney eta all, be tried for war crimes and put to death. And let's NOT forget Eric Holder. In my mind they are nothing more or less than criminal gangs that let their rich friends rape and plunder those that are poorer with absolutely no laws applying to THEM. As my son said, " Funny that if you are rich the laws just don't apply to you."

Many on this site are confirmed Marxist, socialist. Marxism, socialism and communism are one in the same. Why does it surprise you that the communist politburo premier Obama is taking constitutional rights away? People can not say they didn't know he is a communist. The phrase, "Distribution of wealth" was the give away. Barry O should have had the flag of the Soviet Union behind him.

Tried link for above,LS,but first thing it asked to change settings.What chance does the 'net ignorant' have for privacy?

Thermlin wrote:

Well,it looks like the fix is in.Recently tried surfing 'off rez'.Half of it seems to be unavailable or off-lined-this is big companies or names,not niche sites.Makes things more difficult for those who have no voice to communicate,thereby rendering the technology MORE inefficient.(it limps at the best of times,but small mercies...).

Thermlin, I don't get it. Every link posted here works for me including lilacs. The Change.org petition even laughably says:

Victory

More than 179,000 people signed Daniel Jabbour's petition on Change.org opposing the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), sending a strong message to Congress that the privacy rights of Americans are non-negotiable. While the bill did pass the House, because of widespread opposition to the bill from petitions like Daniel's, the U.S. Senate announced it would not be taking up the bill.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum